in your organization - the tyee · in your organization ... bc stats: work environment survey 2013...

exploring employee engagement in your organization

december 2013

Health

The 2013 Work Environment Survey and reports have been commissioned by the BC Public Service Agency on behalf of the BC Public Service.

BC Stats Work Environment Survey Team:

Tanis Abuda, Jill Adams, Richard Armitage, Linda Cummings, Sonja Cunningham, Julie Hawkins, Esther Lee, Angela Matheson, Jodi Oystrick, and Janet Woo.

Contact: [email protected]

Copyright © 2013, Province of British Columbia. All rights reserved.

This material is owned by the Government of British Columbia and protected by copyright law. It may not be reproduced or redistributed without the prior written permission of the Province of British Columbia. To request permission to reproduce all or part of this material, please complete the Copyright Permission Request Form at http://www.gov.bc.ca/com/copy/req/.

Publish date: December 2013

http://www.gov.bc.ca/com/copy/req/

BC Stats: Work Environment Survey 2013 1

Your Results at a Glance The BC Public Service Work Environment Survey (WES) was conducted from October 2 to October 25 2013. In your organization 966 employees (81% of the total) participated and provided feedback about their workplace experiences.

The engagement scores for your organization are highlighted below. Scores from the WES 2011 cycle as well as the BC Public Service are also included for reference. A summary of all relevant scores though the lens of the 2013 BC Public Service Employee Engagement Model follows.

ENGAGEMENT SCORES

Present Result Your Organization in 2013 64

Past Result Your Organization in 2011 71

Benchmark BC Public Service in 2013 64

Your organization compared to past result -7

Your organization compared to benchmark 0


TABLE 1: MODEL SCORES

*These drivers have been refined since 2011. Caution is advised when comparing these scores across years.

YOUR ORGANIZATION

YOUR ORGANIZATION COMPARED TO THE BCPS

2013 2011 DIFF 2013 DIFF

ENGAGEMENT 64 71 -7 64 0

BC Public Service Commitment 68 73 -5 67 1

Job Satisfaction 63 69 -6 66 -3

Organization Satisfaction 61 70 -9 59 2

Empowerment 67 71 -4 65 2

Stress & Workload 60 66 -6 57 3

Job Suitability (new) 72 n/a n/a 76 -4

Vision, Mission & Goals 62 68 -6 58 4

Teamwork 76 79 -3 76 0

Workplace Tools (new) 63 n/a n/a 58 5

Recognition 63 68 -5 59 4

Professional Development 61 67 -6 58 3

Pay & Benefits* 50 59 -9 47 3

Staffing Practices 67 68 -1 59 8

Respectful Environment* 75 78 -3 72 3

Executive-Level Management 52 61 -9 55 -3

Supervisory-Level Management* 71 72 -1 69 2


Table of Contents About the WES program ............................................................................................... 4

About the Engagement Model ....................................................................................... 5

Your Organization’s House Model Results ..................................................................... 7

BC Public Service House Model Results ....................................................................... 8

Question by Question House Model Results .................................................................. 9

Setting the Results in Motion....................................................................................... 13

Appendix A: Full Survey Results .................................................................................. 15

Appendix B: Questionnaire Definitions ....................................................................... 22

Appendix C: Driver Glossary ....................................................................................... 23

Appendix D: Background ............................................................................................ 24 High Level ............................................................................................................... 24 Operations ............................................................................................................... 24 Population / Sample ................................................................................................. 24 Confidentiality......................................................................................................... 24 Key Measure(s) ........................................................................................................ 25 Response Rates ........................................................................................................ 25 Important Note about 2011 Results ......................................................................... 25

Appendix E: Additional Reading and References .......................................................... 26

Health

4 BC Stats: Work Environment Survey 2013

About the WES program The BC Public Service has been committed to understanding and improving employee engagement for almost a decade. This commitment has been realized, in part, through the BC Public Service Work Environment Survey (WES) program. The WES is now internationally recognized by other jurisdictions and public sector agencies as leading employee engagement research.

Research in both the public and private sectors, including in the BC Public Service, has shown that engaged employees are crucial to the achievement of positive organizational outcomes. It has been consistently demonstrated that engaged employees are more productive, are less likely to resign, and provide better services to citizens and businesses. The investment in efforts aimed at achieving a more engaged workforce is an investment benefiting all British Columbians.

Evaluating employee engagement enables the establishment of important baseline measures from which we can diagnose work environment challenges impacting engagement, start conversations on what can be done differently, implement strategies, monitor progress, and demonstrate how experiences may have changed over time. A robust measurement program also provides valuable insights for everyone in the organization, helping us all to understand our experiences, celebrate our successes, and identify what we should focus on moving forward. The high response

rate achieved in the WES means that the information contained in this report and its companions are of high quality, ensuring that the right conclusions are drawn.

A key element of BC Stats’ engagement research is the BC Public Service Employee Engagement Model. The model shows how various elements of employees’ work environment directly and indirectly impacts their engagement. In this report, the structure and content helps focus attention on ways to maximize engagement and support ongoing human resource efforts and initiatives towards Being the Best.

BC Stats research has shown that organizations with highly engaged employees are more productive and provide better services to citizens and businesses.

Health


About the Engagement Model BC Stats developed the BC Public Service Employee Engagement Model using a statistical technique called structural equation modelling. The modelling process identifies the drivers of engagement, which are clusters of questions about workplace topics covering a wide range of aspects about employees’ experiences. Drivers have the potential to effectively increase or decrease overall engagement. Their connections or relationships with each other move in specific directions, where a driver can be affected by other drivers (incoming connections) and, in turn, directly affect others (outgoing connections). The pattern of connections between the drivers and the engagement characteristics shape the overall structure of the engagement model.

Similar to previous cycles, the model structure is graphically represented as a ‘house’ diagram, with a foundation, building blocks, and a roof. The diagram serves as a visual metaphor that simplifies the relationships between the different parts of the model. The engagement characteristics are located in the roof of the ‘house’. The building blocks identify the core workplace functions influencing these characteristics. The model rests on the two management drivers making up the foundation, which are connected either directly or indirectly to every other driver in the model.

The structure and integrity of the model have remained remarkably stable since its creation in 2006, due to the large employee population, high response rates, and the completeness of the questionnaire in measuring aspects of the work environment that contribute to engagement. Despite its stability, employee priorities change, as do societal, political and economic circumstances. Given the dynamic nature of the work environment, the engagement model has been continuously tested to ensure it is the best representation of the average BC Public Service employee experience. The goals are always the same: to ensure the model provides an understanding of how employees’ work environment impacts their engagement, while providing a tool for diagnosing challenges and using this diagnosis to facilitate positive changes. Typically these modifications in the model are minor in scope. The analysis of the 2013 data, however, shows that it is time to make renovations to the original model. While changes this year are necessary, BC Stats has balanced these improvements with continuity, allowing for effective year-over-year comparison.

Health


For this cycle, the renovations to the house diagram included the following three types of changes.

1. The addition of one new driver made up of two survey questions.

My work is meaningful.

My job is a good fit with my skills and interests.

2. The replacement of one driver with another containing two new questions.

The computer based tools (e.g., hardware, software) I have access to help me excel in my job.

The non-computer based tools (e.g., office or outdoor equipment) I have access to help me excel in my job.

3. The refinement of questions making up three drivers.

The Pay & Benefits driver has been expanded with the addition of one question: My pay is competitive with similar jobs in the region.

The Supervisory-Level Management driver has been expanded with the addition of one new question: The person I report to leads with an understanding of others' perspectives.

The Respectful Environment driver has been revised with two new questions: My work unit values diversity in people and backgrounds, and My work unit values diversity in ideas. These two questions replace the original question: My work unit values diversity.

Based on statistical tests of the 2013 WES data, the house model contains 38 questions and is now more powerful than ever. The drivers link together to form over 500 unique pathways to engagement. Each pathway starts from the foundation and passes through varying combinations of building blocks to reach one of the three engagement characteristics in the roof. More resources on how to use the model for interpreting results, understand the model pathways and/or the statistical methodology are available online in two main reports: the Employee Engagement User Guide 2011 (BC Stats, 2012) and Modelling the 2011 Work Environment Survey Results (BC Stats, 2012). Both reports can be found at:

https://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/EmployeeResearch/WES/WESPublicResources

Job Suitability

Physical Environment & Tools Workplace Tools

https://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/EmployeeResearch/WES/WESPublicResources

Health


BC Public Service Commitment

68

ENGAGEMENT

ENGAGEMENT CHARACTERISTICS

WORKPLACE FUNCTIONS ARE THE BUILDING BLOCKS

Supervisory-Level Management 71

64

MANAGEMENT IS THE FOUNDATION

Organization Satisfaction

61

Executive-Level Management 52

Respectful Environment 75

Stress & Workload 60

Recognition 63

Pay & Benefits 50

Staffing Practices 67

Teamwork 76

Workplace Tools 63

Professional Development

61

Empowerment 67

Vision, Mission & Goals 62

Job Suitability 72

Job Satisfaction 63

Your Organization’s House Model Results

Understand your challenges (54 points or lower)

Focus on improvements (55 to 64 points)

Leverage your strengths (65 to 74 points)

Celebrate your successes (75 to 84 points)

Model your achievements (85 points or higher)

Health



67

ENGAGEMENT

ENGAGEMENT CHARACTERISTICS

WORKPLACE FUNCTIONS ARE THE BUILDING BLOCKS


64

MANAGEMENT IS THE FOUNDATION

Organization Satisfaction

59




Recognition 59

Pay & Benefits 47


Teamwork 76

Workplace Tools 58


58

Empowerment 65


Job Suitability 76

Job Satisfaction 66

BC Public Service House Model Results

Understand your challenges (54 points or lower)

Focus on improvements (55 to 64 points)

Leverage your strengths (65 to 74 points)

Celebrate your successes (75 to 84 points)

Model your achievements (85 points or higher)

Health


Question by Question House Model Results TABLE 2: DRIVER AND QUESTION RESULTS FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION1

SCORE

/100 POINTS2

PERCENTAGES

DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE

ENGAGEMENT CHARACTERISTICS (ROOF)

BC Public Service Commitment 68

I would prefer to stay with the BC Public Service, even if offered a similar job elsewhere. 67 18% 20% 63%

Overall, I am satisfied in my work as a BC Public Service employee. 69 13% 20% 67%

Job Satisfaction 63

I am satisfied with my job. 63 20% 23% 57%

Organization Satisfaction 61

I am satisfied with my organization. 61 19% 29% 52%

WORKPLACE FUNCTIONS (BUILDING BLOCKS)

Empowerment 67

I have opportunities to provide input into decisions that affect my work. 72 14% 14% 71%

I have the freedom to make the decisions necessary to do my job well. 67 17% 19% 64%

I have the opportunities I need to implement new ideas. 61 21% 26% 53%

1 Some percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. For more information about how results are calculated, please refer to Appendix A. 2 Average scores for individual question items may not equal the overall score for that driver when the items are averaged together. This is due to the method with which the overall scores are calculated for the drivers.

Health


SCORE

/100 POINTS2

PERCENTAGES



My workload is manageable. 61 21% 25% 55%

My work-related stress is manageable. 60 22% 25% 53%

Job Suitability (new) 72

My work is meaningful. 73 11% 19% 70%

My job is a good fit with my skills and interests. 71 13% 19% 68%


My organization is taking steps to ensure the long-term success of its vision, mission and goals. 64 15% 27% 58%

The vision, mission and goals of my organization are communicated well. 59 20% 31% 49%

Teamwork 76

When needed, members of my team help me get the job done. 79 7% 13% 79%

Members of my team communicate effectively with each other. 68 14% 21% 64%

I have positive working relationships with my co-workers. 82 4% 12% 84%

Workplace Tools (new and replaces Physical Work Environment & Tools)

63

The computer based tools (e.g., hardware, software) I have access to help me excel in my job. 60 23% 23% 54%

The non-computer based tools (e.g., office or outdoor equipment) I have access to help me excel in my job. 66 12% 29% 59%

Recognition 63

I receive meaningful recognition for work well done. 63 23% 20% 57%

In my work unit, recognition is based on performance. 64 20% 21% 59%

Health


SCORE

/100 POINTS2

PERCENTAGES


Professional Development 61

My organization supports my work related learning and development. 65 18% 23% 59%

The quality of training and development I have received is satisfactory. 60 20% 28% 52%

I have adequate opportunities to develop my skills. 57 27% 25% 48%

Pay & Benefits 50

I am fairly paid for the work I do. 50 35% 23% 41%

My pay is competitive with similar jobs in the region. (new) 44 43% 26% 32%

My benefits meet my (and my family's) needs well. 56 28% 25% 47%


In my work unit, the selection of a person for a position is based on merit. 67 17% 21% 62%

In my work unit, the process of selecting a person for a position is fair. 67 18% 19% 62%


A healthy atmosphere (e.g., trust, mutual respect) exists in my work unit. 71 16% 15% 69%

My work unit values diversity in people and backgrounds. (new) 79 6% 14% 80%

My work unit values diversity in ideas. (new) 71 13% 15% 71%

My work unit is free from discrimination and harassment. 79 10% 11% 79%

Health


SCORE

/100 POINTS2

PERCENTAGES


MANAGEMENT (FOUNDATION)


Executives in my organization communicate decisions in a timely manner. 52 31% 27% 42%

Executives in my organization provide clear direction for the future. 51 31% 31% 37%


The person I report to provides clear expectations regarding my work. 71 14% 16% 70%

The person I report to consults me on decisions that affect me. 71 17% 14% 69%

The person I report to leads with an understanding of others' perspectives. (new) 71 15% 16% 69%

The person I report to keeps me informed of things I need to know. 71 15% 18% 68%

Health


Setting the Results in Motion Understanding and using survey results to facilitate positive changes in the workplace is not an easy endeavour. Such actions take time and dedication from supervisory and executive-level management, and cannot succeed without the awareness, openness and willingness of all employees to be a part of the changes occurring.

An analysis of the 2011 and 2013 WES data reinforces the importance of using the results strategically and effectively. In the 2011 and 2013 survey cycles, employees were asked about their level of agreement with the statement: Last cycle’s work environment

survey results led to improvements in my current workplace.

In 2013, nearly 13,000 employees across the BC Public Service weighed in with mixed reactions (Figure 1). Almost one-quarter (22%) of respondents believed that the last cycle’s survey results led to workplace improvements, while nearly one-third (29%) provided a neutral response. A more substantial proportion of respondents disagreed with the statement; half (50%) of those surveyed did not believe the 2011 survey results led to improvements in their current workplace.

FIGURE 1: RESPONDENTS REPORTING SURVEY-DRIVEN WORKPLACE IMPROVEMENTS

Opinions were also mixed across BC Public Service organizations. In your organization for example, 21% of respondents believed last cycle’s survey results led to improvements in their current workplace, while 49% disagreed.

The analysis also found that survey-driven workplace improvements have an impact on engagement overall. The 2011 and 2013 engagement scores for each of the above group

50%

29%

22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Disagreed

Neutral

Agreed

Percentage of Respondents

Surv

ey re

sults

led

to w

orkp

lace

impr

ovem

ents

Twenty-two percent of respondents believed the last cycle’s survey results led to workplace improvements.

Health


15

1

-17-20

-15

-10

-5

5

10

15

20

Agreed Neutral Disagreed

Diff

eren

ce in

Eng

agem

ent S

core

s si

nce

2011

Survey Results Led to Improvements

of respondents (i.e., those who agreed, were neutral or disagreed with seeing survey-driven improvements) were analysed to see how their engagement may have changed over time (Figure 2). In the 2011 cycle, the engagement score for each group was more or less the same, ranging between 65 and 66 points (out of 100). Employees who indicated that the previous cycle’s survey results led to workplace improvements became much more engaged over time, however. Engagement scores for this group increased fifteen points from 65 points in the 2011 cycle to 81 points in the 2013 cycle.

Employees who were neutral about whether survey-driven workplace changes had occurred demonstrated minimal change in engagement from 2011 to 2013. Their engagement scores remained stable over time, averaging 66 points in the 2011 cycle, and 67 points in the 2013 cycle.

The engagement of employees who disagreed that survey-driven changes had occurred showed the opposite trend of the group who agreed. Although their engagement was similar to the other groups in 2011, with scores averaging at 65 points, they became less engaged over time. By the 2013 cycle, their scores averaged seventeen points lower than in 2011 at 48 points.

FIGURE 2: OVERALL DIFFERENCE IN ENGAGEMENT FROM 2011 TO 2013 FOR EACH GROUP

Future analysis is required to explore what could be contributing to these trends; such as the type or efficacy of actions undertaken, or communications of the changes made. These initial findings illustrate the importance of using survey results to make workplace improvements and communicating such efforts to employees. Using the results as a tool to diagnose work environment challenges and make positive changes may not be a simple task, but once such efforts are in motion, the effect on engagement is undeniable.

Employees who believed the previous cycle’s survey results led to workplace improvements became more engaged over time, while those who disagreed became less engaged over time.

Health


40% AGREE

Question A

Strongly agree

5 4 3 2

Strongly disagree

1

Strongly agree

5 4 3 2

Strongly disagree

1

2 people chose a

4 or 5

2 people chose a

1 or 2

20% NEUTRAL

40% DISAGREE

1 person chose a

3

100 75 50 25 0 100 75 50 25 0

chose a 5 chose a 4 = 0 pts

chose a 3 chose a 2 1 person chose a 1

= 0 pts = 200 pts

0 people 1 person

= 25 pts

5 people

AVERAGE

SCORE is 55 =

275 points =

Question A

Strongly agree

5 4 3 2

Strongly disagree

1

Strongly agree

5 4 3 2

Strongly disagree

1

= 50 pts

2 people 1 person

Appendix A: Full Survey Results The results are presented in two different but complementary ways. Results are shown as percentages to highlight the distribution of responses per question. The results are also shown as average scores to include a single measure for each question for ease of comparability. In the table, please note that:

scores and percentages are now included in the same table, for simplicity and ease, and some percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Percentages Percentages show the proportion of employees who disagreed, agreed or gave a neutral response to the survey question.

To calculate percentages, the number of times an answer was selected by respondents was totalled and collapsed into three categories.

Average Scores Average scores range from 0 to 100 and represent the full range of responses to each question. To calculate average scores, the 5-point survey scale is converted into a 100-point scale and averaged based on the number of respondents.

Health


TABLE 3: DISTRIBUTIONS OF RESPONSES AND AVERAGES SCORES FOR ALL QUESTIONS

LINKAGE TO MODEL SURVEY QUESTIONS YEAR % OF RESPONDENTS SCORE

/100 POINTS

DIFFERENCE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE

MY DAY-TO-DAY WORK

Respectful Environment

A healthy atmosphere (e.g., trust, mutual respect) exists in my work unit.

2011 15% 13% 72% 73

2013 16% 15% 69% 71 -2


My work unit values diversity in people and backgrounds. (new)

2011 --% --% --% --

2013 6% 14% 80% 79 --


My work unit values diversity in ideas. (new)

2011 --% --% --% --

2013 13% 15% 71% 71 --


My work unit is free from discrimination and harassment.

2011 10% 8% 82% 82

2013 10% 11% 79% 79 -3

Empowerment I have opportunities to provide input into decisions that affect my work.

2011 13% 14% 74% 75

2013 14% 14% 71% 72 -3

Empowerment I have the freedom to make the decisions necessary to do my job well.

2011 15% 17% 68% 71

2013 17% 19% 64% 67 -4

Innovation is valued in my work. 2011 13% 16% 71% 72

2013 15% 20% 65% 68 -4

I am encouraged to be innovative in my work.

2011 15% 18% 68% 70

2013 17% 21% 61% 66 -4

Empowerment I have the opportunities I need to implement new ideas.

2011 17% 21% 62% 66

2013 21% 26% 53% 61 -5

I am inspired to give my very best. 2011 16% 19% 65% 70

2013 20% 21% 59% 65 -5

My work unit is well supported during times of change.

2011 22% 20% 58% 64

2013 31% 26% 44% 54 -10

Employees are held accountable in my work unit.

2011 15% 18% 67% 69

2013 18% 25% 57% 64 -5

Health



/100 POINTS


I feel my job is secure. 2011 16% 19% 65% 68

2013 17% 23% 60% 65 -3

Staffing Practices

In my work unit, the selection of a person for a position is based on merit.

2011 20% 16% 64% 67

2013 17% 21% 62% 67 0

Staffing Practices

In my work unit, the process of selecting a person for a position is fair.

2011 18% 17% 66% 69

2013 18% 19% 62% 67 -2

Recognition I receive meaningful recognition for work well done.

2011 17% 18% 65% 68

2013 23% 20% 57% 63 -5

Recognition In my work unit, recognition is based on performance.

2011 17% 18% 65% 67

2013 20% 21% 59% 64 -3

Pay & Benefits I am fairly paid for the work I do.

2011 28% 22% 50% 57

2013 35% 23% 41% 50 -7

Pay & Benefits

My benefits meet my (and my family's) needs well.

2011 22% 23% 55% 61

2013 28% 25% 47% 56 -5

Pay & Benefits

My pay is competitive with similar jobs in the region.

2011 35% 23% 42% 52

2013 43% 26% 32% 44 -8

Job Suitability My work is meaningful.

2011 10% 14% 76% 76

2013 11% 19% 70% 73 -3

Job Suitability

My job is a good fit with my skills and interests.

2011 12% 15% 72% 74

2013 13% 19% 68% 71 -3

I am proud of the work I do. 2011 5% 10% 85% 83

2013 7% 13% 80% 80 -3

My workplace procedures allow me to use my time as effectively as possible.

2011 17% 22% 61% 66

2013 20% 25% 55% 61 -5

I regularly participate in activities that are not necessarily expected of me, to help my organization succeed.

2011 7% 21% 72% 74

2013 10% 21% 69% 72 -2

Work is distributed fairly in my work unit.

2011 19% 19% 62% 65

2013 25% 22% 52% 58 -7

Health



/100 POINTS


Stress & Workload My workload is manageable.

2011 16% 20% 64% 67

2013 21% 25% 55% 61 -6

Stress & Workload My work-related stress is manageable.

2011 16% 21% 63% 66

2013 22% 25% 53% 60 -6

My job provides me with the right amount of challenge.

2011 19% 21% 60% 65

2013 23% 22% 55% 60 -5

I have support at work to provide a high level of service.

2011 15% 17% 68% 70

2013 19% 23% 58% 63 -7

I have support at work to balance my work and personal life.

2011 11% 18% 71% 73

2013 17% 20% 63% 67 -6

MY PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND TOOLS

My physical work environment is satisfactory.

2011 11% 15% 73% 73

2013 14% 21% 66% 68 -5

The physical security of my workplace is satisfactory.

2011 3% 10% 86% 83

2013 4% 13% 83% 80 -3

I have the information I need to do my job well.

2011 12% 19% 69% 70

2013 13% 22% 64% 67 -3

Workplace Tools

The computer based tools (e.g., hardware, software) I have access to help me excel in my job.

2011 10% 18% 72% 72

2013 23% 23% 54% 60 -12

Workplace Tools

The non-computer based tools (e.g., office or outdoor equipment) I have access to help me excel in my job.

2011 8% 20% 72% 73

2013 12% 29% 59% 66 -7

MY DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE


My organization supports my work related learning and development.

2011 13% 18% 69% 72

2013 18% 23% 59% 65 -7


The quality of training and development I have received is satisfactory.

2011 16% 22% 62% 66

2013 20% 28% 52% 60 -6

Health



/100 POINTS



I have adequate opportunities to develop my skills.

2011 19% 25% 56% 63

2013 27% 25% 48% 57 -6

I have opportunities for career growth within the BC Public Service.

2011 24% 25% 51% 60

2013 35% 25% 40% 51 -9

I receive the amount of feedback and support I need from the person I report to.

2011 16% 14% 70% 71

2013 16% 17% 67% 70 -1

I receive the quality of feedback and support I need from the person I report to.

2011 18% 13% 69% 70

2013 18% 17% 65% 68 -2

MyPerformance helps me achieve my key work goals.*

2011 48% 23% 29% 41

2013 47% 28% 26% 40 -1

MyPerformance helps me achieve my career goals.*

2011 53% 22% 25% 38

2013 53% 26% 21% 36 -2

MY CO-WORKERS

Teamwork When needed, members of my team help me get the job done.

2011 6% 11% 83% 82

2013 7% 13% 79% 79 -3

My ideas are respected by others in my work unit.

2011 7% 12% 81% 79

2013 9% 15% 76% 76 -3

Teamwork Members of my team communicate effectively with each other.

2011 14% 16% 71% 72

2013 14% 21% 64% 68 -4

Teamwork I have positive working relationships with my co-workers.

2011 2% 9% 88% 85

2013 4% 12% 84% 82 -3

THE PERSON I REPORT TO

Supervisory-Level Management

The person I report to provides clear expectations regarding my work.

2011 15% 14% 71% 72

2013 14% 16% 70% 71 -1


The person I report to consults me on decisions that affect me.

2011 17% 12% 70% 72

2013 17% 14% 69% 71 -1

Health



/100 POINTS



The person I report to keeps me informed of things I need to know.

2011 16% 12% 72% 72

2013 15% 18% 68% 71 -1

The person I report to is an effective manager.

2011 16% 12% 72% 73

2013 15% 16% 70% 71 -2


The person I report to leads with an understanding of others’ perspectives. (new)

2011 --% --% --% --

2013 15% 16% 69% 71 --

The person I report to maintains high standards of honesty and integrity.

2011 9% 9% 82% 81

2013 9% 12% 79% 79 -2

I am satisfied with the quality of supervision I receive.

2011 15% 13% 72% 74

2013 14% 14% 72% 73 -1

MY EXECUTIVE

Executive-Level Management

Executives in my organization communicate decisions in a timely manner.

2011 18% 24% 58% 63

2013 31% 27% 42% 52 -11

Executives in my organization clearly communicate strategic changes and/or changes in priorities.

2011 20% 25% 55% 62

2013 28% 27% 45% 55 -7

Executive-Level Management

Executives in my organization provide clear direction for the future.

2011 22% 27% 52% 60

2013 31% 31% 37% 51 -9

Essential information flows efficiently from senior leadership to staff.

2011 24% 26% 49% 58

2013 35% 28% 38% 49 -9

I have confidence in the senior leadership of my organization.

2011 17% 25% 58% 64

2013 25% 27% 48% 57 -7

MY ORGANIZATION

Vision, Mission & Goals

My organization is taking steps to ensure the long-term success of its vision, mission and goals.

2011 11% 23% 67% 69

2013 15% 27% 58% 64 -5

Vision, Mission & Goals

The vision, mission and goals of my organization are communicated well.

2011 14% 26% 60% 66

2013 20% 31% 49% 59 -7

Health



/100 POINTS


I know how my work contributes to the achievement of my organization’s goals.

2011 14% 22% 64% 68

2013 18% 26% 56% 63 -5

MY EMPLOYMENT AS A BC PUBLIC SERVANT

WORK UNIT

Job Satisfaction I am satisfied with my job.

2011 14% 19% 67% 69

2013 20% 23% 57% 63 -6

I am satisfied with my work unit. 2011 13% 17% 70% 73

2013 16% 20% 65% 68 -5

I would prefer to remain with my work unit, even if a comparable job was available elsewhere in the BC Public Service.

2011 22% 16% 62% 66

2013 27% 19% 54% 60 -6

ORGANIZATION

Organization Satisfaction I am satisfied with my organization.

2011 11% 21% 68% 70

2013 19% 29% 52% 61 -9

At present, I would prefer to remain with my organization even if a comparable job was available in another organization.

2011 17% 20% 62% 67

2013 25% 24% 51% 59 -8

BC PUBLIC SERVICE


Overall, I am satisfied in my work as a BC Public Service employee.

2011 8% 16% 75% 75

2013 13% 20% 67% 69 -6

I am proud to tell people I work for the BC Public Service.

2011 9% 18% 72% 74

2013 13% 24% 63% 68 -6


I would prefer to stay with the BC Public Service, even if offered a similar job elsewhere.

2011 13% 19% 68% 72

2013 18% 20% 63% 67 -5

I would recommend the BC Public Service as a great place to work.

2011 12% 21% 67% 71

2013 18% 27% 55% 64 -7

IMPROVEMENTS BASED ON SURVEY

Last cycle’s Work Environment Survey results led to improvements in my current workplace.

2011 29% 28% 43% 54

2013 49% 30% 21% 37 -17

* Question wording has been revised since 2011; “MyPerformance” has replaced “Employee Performance and Development Plan”.

Health


Appendix B: Questionnaire Definitions The questionnaire used specific terms to describe aspects of the work environment. The terms as presented to the respondents are shown below.

Your work unit refers to the section or program area within the organization where you work.

Diversity refers to different people, backgrounds and ideas.

Discrimination occurs if a distinction is made that imposes burdens, obligations or disadvantages that are not imposed on others, based on the grounds listed below.

race religion sex

colour marital status sexual orientation

ancestry family status physical or mental disability

place of origin age unrelated criminal conviction

political belief

Harassment includes any unwelcome conduct or comment which has a negative impact on you or your work environment.

Workplace procedures refer to a series of steps and decisions that explains or describes how to complete a task or accomplish a result.

Your organization refers to your ministry, agency, office or commission of the Province.

MyPerformance refers to your plan, the tool, and the conversations you have with your supervisor about your plan.

“The person I report to” refers to your immediate supervisor or manager. If you report to more than one supervisor or manager, please answer the question thinking about the person who oversees most of your work.

Your executive refers to the senior leadership in headquarters including the Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy Ministers, Executive Directors, and other members of the Executive Committee.

Health


Appendix C: Driver Glossary The engagement model drivers are defined as follows:

Empowerment: Employees believe they have opportunities and freedom to provide input, make decisions to do their job well and implement new ideas.

Stress & Workload: Employees perceive that their work-related stress and workloads are manageable.

Job Suitability: Employees believe that their work is both meaningful and a good fit with their skills and interests.

Vision, Mission & Goals: Employees believe that their organization’s vision, mission, and goals are well communicated and that their organization is taking steps to ensure its long-term success.

Teamwork: Employees experience positive working relationships, have support from their team, and feel their team communicates effectively.

Workplace Tools: Employees believe that both the computer-based and non computer-based tools they have access to help them excel in their jobs.

Recognition: Employees experience meaningful and performance-based recognition.

Professional Development: Employees believe their organization supports their learning and development, provides good quality training, and offers adequate opportunities to develop their skills.

Pay & Benefits: Employees believe that their pay is fair and competitive with similar jobs, and that their benefits meet their needs well.

Staffing Practices: Employees believe staffing processes in their work unit are fair and based on merit.

Respectful Environment: Employees experience a healthy and diverse atmosphere free from discrimination and harassment.

Executive-Level Management: Employees believe that senior leaders communicate decisions in a timely manner and that they provide clear direction for the future.

Supervisory-Level Management: Employees believe that the person they report to leads with an understanding of others’ perspectives, keeps them informed, consults them on decisions that affect them, and provides clear work expectations.

Health


Appendix D: Background

High Level Study: BC Public Service Work Environment Survey (WES) 2013

Project Sponsor: BC Public Service Agency

Operations Instrument / Data Collection Method: Survey

Modes: Online and Post Mail Questionnaire

Fielding Window / Dates: October 2 – October 25, 2013

Project History: Annual survey 2006-2011; Biennial survey 2013

Population / Sample Scope: Individuals who were deemed as active BC Public Service employees in the

Corporate Human Resource Information and Payroll System (CHIPS) as of August 1, 2013 and had valid contact information.

Population: 24,288

Obtained Sample: 19,447

Response Rate: 80%

Target Population: Census

Confidentiality During survey administration, employees received personalized invitations and reminders. All survey responses were encrypted during submission and stored on a secure server accessed only by select members of the BC Stats Work Environment Survey team. All BC Stats employees are sworn under the Statistics Act, and all information collected in the survey is protected by the Statistics Act. No names or contact information are stored with responses and only aggregate results are provided in the reports. Individual responses or information that could identify an individual cannot be disclosed.

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96439_01

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96439_01

Health


Key Measure(s) Key Construct: BC Public Service Engagement Score: 64 points (out of 100)

Type of Measure: 5-point agreement response scale

Methods of Analysis: Structural equation modelling of BC Public Service data and descriptive statistics

Response Rates In your organization this cycle, 81% of employees completed the survey, a -9 percentage point (ppt) change since 2011 (Table 4).

TABLE 4: RESPONSE RATES OVER TIME YEAR COMPLETED

SURVEYS TOTAL

EMPLOYEES RESPONSE

RATES CHANGE

(PPT)

YOUR ORGANIZATION

2011 1070 1194 90% -9

2013 966 1190 81%

BC PUBLIC SERVICE

2011 20331 24776 82% -2

2013 19447 24288 80%

BC Stats wishes to thank all employees who participated in WES and contributed to achieving such a high response rate. High survey response rates ensure high quality, reliable data.

Important Note about 2011 Results The restructuring of organizations within the BC Public Service since the 2011 survey cycle necessitated a recalculation of the 2011 results to reflect the organization structure at the time of the 2013 cycle. In order to do this, the positions that employees were in at the time of the 2011 cycle were mapped to the current organizational structure of the BC Public Service. While this approach allows for improved comparability between 2013 and 2011, it does mean that the numbers presented in this report may differ from those in previously published reports or be new for organizations with no previously published reports.

Health


Appendix E: Additional Reading and References BC Stats continually analyzes the rich WES data and builds on understanding specific topic areas to support ongoing improvements to the program. Selected examples of what BC Stats has completed in the last several years include:

BC Public Service Year-to-Year State of Engagement (September 2009)

The Top 10 Engagement Pathways for the BC Public Service (October 2009)

Exploring Perceptions of Work Unit Staffing Practices (January 2010)

Maximizing Professional Development (January 2010)

Public Sector Engagement and Service Satisfaction: What Do They Both Have In Common? (February 2010)

Modelling the 2009 Work Environment Survey Results (April 2010)

Exploring Year-to-Year Migration Patterns (May 2010)

Investigating the Nature of Diverse Work Environments: Do Differences Exist Between Specific Demographic Groups? (October 2010)

An In-depth Look into the Management Context (November 2010)

Employee experiences with Professional Development and Performance Management (November 2010)

Professional Development and Performance Management: Organization Highlights (January 2011)

Mining Answers from the Best: A Profile of the Most Engaged Work Units in the BC Public Service (April 2011)

Testing the Organizational Landscape: How do Organizational Characteristics Influence the Engagement Model (April 2011)

Understanding the Frontline Experience (April 2011)

To access these reports and others, please refer to: https://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/EmployeeResearch/WES/WESPublicResources.aspx

https://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/EmployeeResearch/WES/WESPublicResources.aspx

BC Stats: Work Environment Survey 2013

BC Stats is the provincial government’s central statistics agency and has the government’s largest concentration of statistical products, services and

expertise. As a branch of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, the organization is in the business of providing

government with statistical information and analytical services to support informed decision-making and policy development.

in your organization - the tyee · in your organization ... bc stats: work environment survey 2013...

Documents